|
| Ilardi: Italianita | |
|
| Vincent
Ilardi The year 1494 marks the beginning of a series of French invasions of Italy, which lasted intermittently for over half a century. These invasions were to lead soon to a struggle among France, Spain, and the Empire for control of the whole Italian peninsula. This contest finally ended temporarily with the Spanish victory of St Quentin (1557) and the peace of Cateau-Cambresis (1559). The Italian states, suspicious of one another, allied now with one and now with the other of the contestants, according to their own interests. Some attempts were made by a few Italian leaders to cooperate foreign statesmen for the purpose of expelling from Italy at least one of the contestants. But all these schemes failed, partly because the states were not willing to abandon their regional interests and present a united front to the invaders. Yet one must not conclude from this lack of cooperation that ideas combating regional divisions were totally absent. Such ideas existed. They are manifestations of that gradual awareness of belonging to a common historical and cultural group, which had been felt by some Italians since a common Italian literary language and literature had begun to take form gradually in the time of Dante [1265-1321], Petrarch [1304-1374], and Boccaccio [1313-1375]. An awareness of similarities in customs, manners, and traditions among Italians can be seen in many Renaissance writings, and particularly in the Cortegiano by Castiglione, and the Galateo by Diovanni della Casa. The geographical limits of "Italia" have frequently changed from ancient times to the Middle Ages; however, since the time of Dante, the idea began to be diffused that the name "Italia" referred to the whole peninsula; see the Italia Illustrata (1453) and the Descrittione de totta Italia (1550). This feeling of being Italian, however, was dominated by another feeling of greater intensity and pervasiveness - that of localism and regionalism. To give an example, a Florentine of our period thought himself to be a member politically and culturally, first of his city-state (Florence) and secondly, of a larger geographical and cultural entity, Italy. The city-state of Florence was his patria to which his political loyalty was due, and from which he expected protection when he traveled in or outside Italy. It was Florence which he loved and served. For him, Italy was a provincia which originally had formed a part of the ancient Roman Empire, just as France and Spain were provincie in this sense. Unlike France and Spain, Italy lacked a king whom he could consider as a symbol representing the whole provincia. Unlike Florence, Italy was not a state which could claim his political allegiance. Today, the situation is completely reversed. The patria of the modern Florentine is the Italian national state, having its central government in Rome, to which he owes political allegiance. It is this patria which he is supposed to love and serve. When he travels abroad he identifies himself as an Italian, and secondly as a Florentine. In a more restricted sense, he also has a small patria (Florence) where he partakes of the local cultural environment, and participates in local civic affairs. Florence has now become a provincia while Italy is the 'state.' It must be made clear that this feeling of italianita was confined mostly to some members of the intelligentsia and of the upper classes. These individuals, by reason of their education and wealth, were able to transcend the mental and physical barriers of localism, and conceive a larger cultural and geographical entity with a great historical past. The masses, for the most part, were stagnant, culturally and geographically. Their lives revolved around their local campanile from which they seldom ventured forth. Yet there is evidence that some of this trans-regional feeling did trickle down to them occasionally. Machiavelli on Italian Unity. The last chapter of the Prince is commonly regarded as the most outspoken enunciation of Machiavelli's italianita. It is an appeal to Lorenzo de Medici, Duke of Urbino, to be the man of the hour in the liberation of Italy from foreign invaders. Three ideas in this chapter do not seem to have been generally held by others in this period, but were particularly emphasized by Machiavelli. The first refers to the revival of virtu among the Italians of his day. The concept of virtu is associated in this chapter with martial spirit or military valor. The second idea is the formation of a home army to replace the potentially disloyal mercenary troops. While the idea of training a home militia was not entirely original with him, it can be argued that he wrote the first extensive treatise on the subject (the Art of War). The third relatively new element is the call for some sort of Italian 'unity' under one prince. This seems to have been a Machaevallian innovation. Most Italians of this period were thinking in terms of leagues of states (the Holy League of 1511 and the League of Cognac, 1526). The task of 'unification' could be undertaken by a prince who would start preferably with a home base in Central Italy, like Cesare Borgia in Romagna and Lorenzo de Medici in Florence, and gradually conquer the other states. The attempt would be made easier if the prince were a relative of the reigning Pope, from whom he could obtain moral and material support. The attempt could also be made by a republic, if it followed the example of the ancient Roman republic. Rome, Machiavelli pointed out, had subdued the various cities of Italy by making them first her allies (compagni), and then gradually extending her control over them until they had become her 'subjects.' It will be noted that all three Machiavellian methods of creating a large state in Italy are based on power and conquest. Italy was to be made subservient to a powerful prince, a dominant republic, or a mighty league of republics. The emphasis is on subjugation and not on integration. Moreover, Machiavelli was not clear on the geographical extension of the state he advocated for Italy. His comparisons with France and Spain, and his references to ancient Rome, suggest at least a peninsular state. On the other hand, the Borgia and the Etruscan models imply a conception of a large state in central and northern Italy only. In the latter case, it seems reasonable to suppose that this large state would be in actual control of the whole peninsula by its very might, and would be able to preserve the independence of the whole of Italy. Guicciardini's Opposition. Francesco Guicciardini (1483-1540), commenting on the Discorsi of Machiavelli, stated that the reduction of Italy under the rule of one dominant republic or prince would have been more harmful than beneficial to Italian civilization. He raised three objections. First, he points out that 'unity' was not an absolute guarantee of freedom from foreign invasions, since these had occurred also in antiquity when Italy was 'united' under Rome. Secondly, he claimed that history had shown that the Italians were not inclined to favor a 'united' rule over the peninsula. The Romans themselves had much difficulty in subjugating the various peoples of Italy. Third and most important, Guicciardini pointed out that unity under a leading republic would have meant the 'oppression' of other city-states by the leading city-state, since it was the custom of republics to confine the enjoyment of the 'fruits of liberty and rule' to their own citizens, and withhold it from their subject peoples. This external domination in turn would have stifled the spirit of freedom within the various cities, which had been responsible for the flowering of their great civilization. This third objection again gives us an insight into the kind of Italian 'unity' understood by the Italians of the Renaissance. It was 'unity' under a dominant prince or republic just as Rome had 'united' the peninsula. Guicciardini's preferred political settlement for the Italian peninsula was one in which a group of independent states lived in peace with one another, according to the principle of balance of power, without foreign interference. It was this system which Guicciardini and many other figures of the 16th century (Vettori, B Rucellai, etc) thought had prevailed during the time of Lorenzo the Magnificent. This was the golden age for which many of them longed, after it had been destroyed by the foreign invasions. In this sense, then, Guicciardini did not understand the future as well as Machiavelli. For while the latter seemed to have an intuitive perception of the necessity for the Italians to create a strong and large state in order to resist the advance of the rising monarchies, the former still clung to a system which had been rendered obsolete by the march of events in Europe.
All lectures and abstracts posted on this site are Copyright © by their authors. 19 Apr 2002 / Contact The Project / Conferences Page |
